Friday, February 12, 2016

From Threat to Lament

Below is a
rough translation and some initial comments on one of the gospel readings for
the second Sunday of Lent, Luke 13:31-35. It is a strange text in one respect:
The first half and the second half do not seem terribly related to one another.
Herod, the subject of vv.31-32, is the tetrarch of Galilee. V.33 speaks of
Jesus going to Jerusalem, which is located in Judah. In fact, v.33 seems to
pick up on the subject matter of v.32, then trigger the lament over Jerusalem.
I suspect that once upon a time vv. 31-32 and vv.34-35 existed separately, with
Luke constructing v.33 as a bridge between them. It would even seem that v.34
and v.35 were once separate sayings that have been melded together. It just
seems that, as a whole, this is a stitched-together text.

Having said
that, there are plenty of interesting pieces to the stitchwork – Pharisees that
seem to be doing Jesus a favor; Herod, Schmerod, according to Jesus; Jerusalem
is both the beloved place of Jesus’ longing and the place where prophets are
killed. What begins as a threat and warning becomes a lament over the
recalcitrant city. I welcome your comments.

πορεύου: PMImpv 2s, πορεύομαι, 1) to lead over, carry over,
transfer 1a) to pursue the journey on which one has entered, to continue
on one's journey

θέλει:
PAI 3s, θέλω, 1) to will, have in mind, intend

ἀποκτεῖναι: AAInf, ἀποκτείνω, 1) to kill in any way whatever

1.
While I believe many Christians have a caricatured notion of what Pharisees are
like, it does seem odd to find ‘some Pharisees’ who would be sympathetic enough
to Jesus to bring him this warning. Does this text suggest that our view of
Pharisees is simplistic and that their responses to Jesus was more complex than
we imagine? Nicodemus, for example, was a Pharisee and seemed to be a disciple.
Or, is this question not as innocent as it looks? Jesus’ answer seems to turn
the tide and make them messengers to Herod – were they really functioning here
as messengers of Herod?

2.
Herod Antipater was the tetrarch of Galilee. He gets a lot of attention in Luke
as the one who arrested then killed John the Baptizer after John confronted him
about his marriage and other atrocities; as one who hears about Jesus and fears
that he is John revived; and later during Jesus’ trial, Pilate sends Jesus to
Herod, who was wanting to meet him and see a sign, but when Jesus says nothing
Herod and his goons humiliate him. In the end, Herod sent Jesus back to Pilate
and that exchange repairs a broken relationship between Herod and Pilate. One
of Jesus’ supporters is identified also as the spouse of Herod’s steward. Maybe
that’s where he is getting his info about Jesus.

And he said to them, “Having gone say to that
fox, “Behold I am casting out demons and accomplishing healings today and
tomorrow, and on the third I am being completed.

εἶπεν:
AAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak

Πορευθέντες: APPart npm, πορεύομαι, 1) to lead over, carry over,
transfer 1a) to pursue the journey on which one has entered, to continue
on one's journey

εἴπατε:
AAImpv 2p, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak

Ἰδοὺ:
AMImpv ὁράω, behold! calling attention to what may be seen, heard, or
apprehended in any way.

ἐκβάλλω: PAI 1s, ἐκβάλλω, 1) to cast out, drive out, to send out

ἀποτελῶ: PAI 1s, ἀποτελέω, 1) to perfect, to bring quite to an end
2) accomplish

τελειοῦμαι: PPI 1s, τελειόω, 1) to make perfect,
complete 1a) to carry through completely, to accomplish, finish, bring to
an end

1.
“Πορευθέντες” is an aorist passive participle, not an imperative. (The same is
true in Mt. 28:19, the so-called “Great Commission.” It is an aorist participle
and not the imperative “Go...” there either.) While I think “having gone” is
too wooden for a refined translation, the participle does imply that the saying and not the going is the point. The sense – it seems to me – is that Jesus is
not sending them immediately to Herod with this message. Rather, as they go
they can bear this message to Herod rather than bearing a warning to Jesus.

2.
τελειοῦμαι is a present passive indicative. The verb τελειόω can mean ‘to
perfect’, just as the adjective τελος can mean ‘perfect,’ but I think that
tends to be misleading. (What I say of this verse is how I feel about Mt. 5:48
as well.) This is the word at the root of Aristotle’s teleological ethics, a way of apprising right and wrong based not
on a rule but on the end result of
one’s action. In addition, τελειοῦμαι is in the passive voice here, hence
‘being completed.’ Again, most translations refine the awkwardness out of it.

πορεύεσθαι: PMInf, πορεύομαι, 1) to lead over, carry over, transfer
1a) to pursue the journey on which one has entered, to continue on one's
journey

ἐνδέχεται: PMI 3s, ἐνδέχεται, 1) to receive, admit, approve, allow 2)
it can be allowed, is possible, may be

ἀπολέσθαι: AMInf, ἀπόλλυμι, 1) to destroy 1a) to put out of the way
entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin 1b) render useless 1c) to
kill

1.
I don’t use the word “behooves” often, but here’s why I am using it here. The
verb δεῖ is in the third person. I typically translate it as “it is necessary”
but the pronoun με is in the accusative case, therefore it is the direct object
of a transitive verb. “Behooves” can have that direct object, unlike “it is
necessary.” To translate it “I must” is quite a shortcut and Luke had many
other options to say it that way if he wanted to.

2.
Following Mark, Luke uses δεῖ with respect to the necessity of the death of
Jesus. (See Mk.8:31/Lk.9:22.) Jesus’ point seems to be that he will indeed
leave Galilee and go elsewhere – as he was warned to do in v.31 – but not
because of Herod. He is going because it is necessary for him to die in
Jerusalem, the death place of prophets.

3. It is very tempting to make something large out of ‘today,
tomorrow, and on the third.’ Maybe Luke is concocting a resurrection motif, but
within the flow of the narrative itself, this is a very curious reference.

4.ἐχομένῃ is the present middle
participle of ἔχω, which usually means ‘to have’ or ‘to hold.’ Apparently,
there is a way that it can also mean ‘next.’ (This is listed as the 7th
option and only for the middle voice and only 3x in the NT according to the
lexicon used by greattreasures.org. (It sounds like a case of “It must mean
this because every other meaning we know doesn’t seem to make sense.”) A wooden
translation of ἐχομένῃ in its usual sense would be “In thehaving to go”
which is indeed very awkward.

1.
The word ἀφίεται (or the root ἀφίημι) is used often in the NT and gets
translated in a wide variety of ways. It is the word used to speak of
“forgiving” sin or for “divorcing” a spouse. Its primary meaning is “to send
away,” which is very suggestive in all of its translations. It is used several
other times in Luke in the passive voice as “is left” – see Lk.17:34,35, and
maybe 36.Here it is translated widely as “is left desolate.”

2.
Is this a way for Luke’s Jesus to acknowledge the destruction of the temple?

3.
The conjunction δὲ can mean many things. It is not in all the manuscripts.

4.
οὐ and μὴ are both negative particles, οὐ being indicative and μὴ being
subjunctive. Together they have the force of an emphatic negative.

5.
This is a puzzling ending to these verses. Does it suggest the Palm Sunday
parade or an eschatological day of welcoming Jesus as the Blessed One or
something else entirely?

Just a word of thanks for sharing your work. Your blog is one of the first places I check as I begin my sermon study every week. Your translations are stunning, and offer many directions for preaching. But personally, they strike my heart with 'Amen!'Please don't stop!

Ah! The wife of the steward ... the insider - talk about joining the dots. I never got that before. Thank you again for all your work; my Greek is terribly basic and I really appreciate how thoroughly you explain it (even if I don't understand it). Best wishes and thanks.

Ah! The wife of the steward ... the insider - talk about joining the dots. I never got that before. Thank you again for all your work; my Greek is terribly basic and I really appreciate how thoroughly you explain it (even if I don't understand it). Best wishes and thanks.

If you want to leave a comment using only your name, please click the name/url option. I don't believe you have to sign in or anything like that by using that option. You may also use the 'anonymous' option if you want. Just be nice.

About Me

Blog Archive

What Is This Blog, Anyway?

This blog is a weekly translation of a text from the Revised Common Lectionary.It is my rough translation in bold with some initial comments in blue, all of which are subject to change as we journey together. That's why I welcome your comments.